Conformity over Self-Expression? – The Issues with University-Produced Art – Analysis

I’ve often seen a meme circulating on the internet divided in two panels. On the top, Van Gogh’s Starry Night and Leonard Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa with the caption “Without a single degree, they created art that inspired generations”. This is contrasted by the bottom panel with Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian and an installation of blank white canvases on a wall, which is accompanied by the caption “And then the artists with degrees arrived”. I’ve never particularly liked this meme because it greatly simplifies the nature of the art industry, while also generalising tertiary-educated artists as somehow lacking artistic ability compared to those who were self-taught.

Yet, when looking at various works at university exhibitions, I regretfully admit that the meme does have a point, at least compared to TAFE-produced art. Having studied at both TAFE and university, I’ve noticed a stark difference in the way these institutions have taught art students. While TAFE art courses prioritise technique ahead of concept, university courses focus specifically on producing conceptual art ahead of the technique. This focus on concept in turn, creates art that is inaccessible for those who are outside of the institutional environment. In this analysis, I’ve taken examples from the 2021 annual exhibitions from TAFE and university institutions, though my argument will focus more on the university examples. This will not be a direct work by work comparison since each work is completely different, but rather a general comparison to TAFE works from looking at certain elements of uni works. These works were produced during covid lockdowns, a time when students were not constantly working on campus, therefore making these examples more self-guided. Now I’ve done this not to criticise the the works of art that these students have produced, but more to critique the way universities have stifled creativity and individual expression, rather than encourage it.

One of the glaringly obvious things about university produced works is the haphazard, crude appearance of the installation, completely devoid on any thought of aesthetic, let alone technique. In exhibit A, we have an artist who does have an ability to paint, yet the body of work includes an installation of bed (according to the contextual information provided). There is hay thrown on top of the bed, perhaps as a reference to the expression “to hit the hay.” A piece of material, perhaps a blanket, is thrown on top of the hay. The head and foot of the bed are crudely crafted by a range of materials that are not known to us. The artist has described this installation as being more about the “visceral tactility” process of sculpture as well as exploring home and identity through the body and the bed. This explanation, while already convoluted and inaccessible to an audience outside of the institution, also cannot be discerned from looking at this installation alone. All the audience will see, is a crudely made sculpture that sort of looks like a bed, with various objects thrown together. It does not tell us anything about the artist nor their motivations for creating this work. Exhibit A looks more like an imitation of Tracey Emin’s My Bed, though at least this artist has made this work themselves, rather than dragging their own bed into a gallery space. Fact of the matter is, it’s a highly conceptual work that prioritises putting forward a message that can only be known from reading curatorial texts. At best, it is an imitation of a controversial work, which has lost its novelty. At worst, it is a sign of universities not really teaching artists how to create anything, except to throw objects together and give it a meaning.

This focus on message over technique can also make works appear clinical. While exhibit A at least has some evidence of the artist’s hand in the process, exhibit B is, unfortunately, slabs on concrete on the floor (with cracks on the surface of one slab). It looks more like a reference to Carl Andre (the artist who was known for putting bricks on the floor of a gallery space). Some of this concrete has text written on it, yet it is hard to read what it says. According to the contextual information, though, this work is basically about carving your own path from a traumatic past but not quite having a clean slate. Again, while an interesting concept, this is not evident from looking at the slabs of concrete on the floor. There is an accompanying video that plays, but viewing this would require extra work from the audience to understand what they are looking at. Although the tone of the work’s message is one of optimism, audiences would not get this without knowing the context. Audiences are forced to depend on the wall labels to fully understand what they are looking at, while also seeing a work that appears so clinical and detached from personal emotion. Grey concrete slabs on the floor not only looks uninspiring but also lazy. Why not illustrate this idea further through a triptych? As well as not teaching artists technique, it seems as if universities are more dedicated to teaching students to replicate what is already there, simply because conceptual art is more “acceptable.”

While there is a focus on conceptual art by universities, there is occasionally some work that is created by the artist’s hand. Exhibit C is such an example of technique and craft. Yet there’s still a sense of restraint involved. The subjects are realism and portraiture, which are both traditional painting styles. Even so, works depict more mundane activities, such as the act of sewing, without actually showing the details of sewing. Audiences again will need to turn to the wall labels to understand that this is what the subjects in the painting are doing because this is not directly obvious. The predominately white and unpainted backgrounds, too, have more of a minimalist appearance that would conform more with works like exhibit A and B. It is almost as if the artist has had to hold back from covering the entire canvas in case they get marked down for an assignment. This restraint is largely absent from the TAFE works, produced the same year, as artists use subject matter that we can instantly recognise: A staring owl complete with detailed feathers, the figure of a family pet, or urban landscapes. None of these works have any contextual information provided, but that’s because audiences don’t need it: They know what they are looking at and can appreciate the work as a whole without any justification. These TAFE artists are not trying to conform to a set of criteria or to produce a profound message but are creating out of pure enjoyment. This freedom of subject allows artists to focus on mastering their respective techniques and, more importantly, a love of creation rather than a hasty scramble to create something for the sake of a degree.

So where am I going with this? The three exhibits I had analysed in the body of this post are not bad works of art but works that have been subjected to the strict criteria and expectations of universities to create conceptual art. I am unsure as to why universities are still so fixated on conceptual art, other than to encourage students to produce work that can be exhibited in contemporary galleries. In pushing students to mimic conceptual art and focus on crafting a message ahead of improving their technique, works become unoriginal, and uninspiring, with absolutely no connection to the artist: They are merely pale imitations of once-controversial works which have lost their novelty. The School of Disobedience articulated this well: “The system has created a very particular kind of obedience: an obedience to sounding intelligent, conceptual and institutionally fluent…And so artists start editing themselves…They speak a language they had to learn in order…to be accepted.”

Institutions shouldn’t be making artists edit themselves so to conform to a set of acceptable criteria. Rather, they should be encouraging artists to create works to the best of their ability. If TAFEs are able to focus more on teaching students about technique, why are universities not following their lead? In pushing students to prioritise concept ahead of technique, all that is churned out are works that have been doing what many artists have done before. There is no heart, no pushing the boundaries, and worst of all, works that audiences cannot understand. All that is left is frustration on both sides. What, then, is the point if artists are stifled and audiences are disconnected? Universities need to do better, or else memes like the one outlined above will be continually proven right.